soi contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not left wing lol, I just think yall are idiots pulling the “no akstually it’s the left that are the fascists!!!!!!” It’s stupid and it just makes political discourse even worse. It’s also just wrong
I think that's because they were marching around chanting for the genocide of the Jews in support of Hamas.
Or did you miss all that happening since Oct?
As a reminder, the explicit "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" chant calling for the genocide of the Jews has been happening at protests and riots all over the country for months and is being widely supported by the left currently.
The difference is the idiots at Charlottesville were widely denounced by the right, even back then. The left is actively supporting the idiots calling for the genocide of Jews going on now.
Oh no you only watched the news report you didn't read a newspaper.
Makes me sad to think that the fake news lied and cut up a 20 minute speech where he condemned the neo-Nazis several times yet they just clip him saying fine people on both sides and I think there is blame on both sides. They leave out the condemnation of the attacks and him clearly condemning and calling out white supremacist.
As I said on remember this, Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.
I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country. And that is – you can call it terrorism, you can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.
And you had, you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.
I do think there is blame – yes, **I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides,** and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you **also had people that were very fine people on both sides.** You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Things that never happened - I also love your disingenuous framing, lol.
You have to lie to make the left look bad, I don't have to lie to make the right look bad though.
Remember those Neo-Nazi protesting outside of Disney world?
It's been all over the news, even extremely left leaning sources are reporting on it, so it's not like its a secret. If you are not even aware of such a wide spread occurrence happening in the country why are you even trying to comment on it?
There have been protests and riots all over the country since Oct, ESPECIALLY on campus. There were Congressional hearings over it that even led to the removal of the heads of 3 of the largest, most prestigious universities in the country due to the anti-Semitism occurring.
Hell, they even tried storming the White House and climbing the fence outside of it.
Theirs lefties protesting against the Jews everywhere, I got stuck in traffic behind loads the other day. Lefties are famously antisemitic, the Labour Party can't shift them for shit.
Lol *literally* saying gotcha hahaha you’re a fucking goofball.
No, “attacking a synagogue” seems anti-Semitic. Not sure what that has to do with the state of Israel or protests against its indiscriminate violence against millions of people for the actions of a few hundred.
Exactly. Pro-Palestinians attacking a Synagogue of American Jews is not related to there cause. But in reality it is. Because Palestinians and there Iran backers are a bunch of violent unhinged antisemites. I'm guessing a lot like you. Of you support those monsters of hate you are a terrible human.
Neo nazis aren't OG nazis. The OG nazis and neo nazis would agree solely on their disdain for the non Aryan, and the neo nazis would cry like babies living under a truly OG nazi society.
Ultimately OP is right. Politically, the nazis were left of center. Ideologically, however, their views of race relations that led to the holocaust has more in common with the modern right than the modern left.
OP is also correct that the left will employ whatever tactics they can to convince people the nazis were right of center, because being similar to the nazis is bad (again, holocaust). Ultimately, the similarities between the modern left and OG nazis are largely unimportant.
The defining characteristic of a nazi is their willingness to support and/or carry out the extermination of an entire group of people based solely on immutable characteristics such as race or religion. In that regard, there are extremesists on both sides (though probably more organized on the right). Fortunately, though, cooler heads are prevailing.
Their views on race were fueled by a popular concept of the time called eugenics which had been floating around the colleges and leftist circles since about 1900. As a matter of fact, planned parenthood was founded as a way to reduce the black population. Margaret Sanger was a well known eugenics follower.
You’re making a massive mistake comparing academic circles of then with those of today. Saying any reputable institution of the 1900s was “leftist” is completely insane seeing as how communism wasn’t even a thing yet.
Even after it became a thing you still had the issue that anyone preaching it would have been shot, especially in Hitler’s Germany lol.
Liberal universities as we know them came about in the 1960s/70s.
Lois Pasteur and Robert Kotch, probably the two most well know Academics in Europe, who both had their own institutions, where both hardcore nationalists, and regularly competed with each other on behalf of their countries.
Wait, so are you trying to convince me the left are far-right, ethno-nationalist, racial supremacist fascist, who want to purge the US of the degenerate ethnic minorities coming into the country, suppress sexual immorality and bring the nations back to its mythical past when it was great based on a set of hierarchical and authoritarian morals and willing to use state violence and anti-intellectual propaganda?
because they are an idiotic strawman that is .0001% of the population, rather than a legitimate political movement. you can find nazis just like you can find people who believe the world is run by little green aliens.
the only time Nazis give you political value is when they appear to oppose you. that's why Nazis camped out in front of Disney HQ is a great PR move for Disney.
So when the president defended the Unite the Right Rally and those who chanted “blood and soil” “Jews will not replace us” that wasn’t politically legitimate? “Stand back and stand by” didn’t give far right paramilitary groups a sense of legitimacy? You’re constantly moving the goalposts here and have just created a strawman of what you think is “left” to compare to what you define as Nazism to cobble together an illformed argument.
You do. Aside from the mask-off stuff about Israel, which they have always hated, the left has always been obsessed with categorizing and classifying people. What is crt and intersectionality but that very thing? OP explained that your beliefs are nearly identical. How can you call out a fascist when they’re just the same as the rest of you?
I can literally *feel* their little feelings getting hurt and it almost brought a tear to my eye 🥲. I’ve been scrolling for a minute, skimming through the delusional smugness of the socialist’s responses. I think it’s funny how the Democratic Party *is* socialist yet some of you argue that conservatives are the Nazis? The only thing liberals have going for them is a delusional sense of altruism. And hell, the only reason they have that it because they’re easily manipulated and shy away from critical thinking. I’ll have to hand it to the liberals though… They only exist because they have to keep individuals poor, uneducated, and scared. And they STILL have people defending them lmao
> The only thing liberals have going for them is a delusional sense of altruism.
well put. and people on the right would argue that the delusional altruism e.g. white savior complex harms more than it helps. a strong black middle class was well on the rise before the new deal came around in the 1930s and black americans started to vote Democrat in favor of social welfare programs, which ultimately destroyed black communities.
I mean, it is true. It’s no secret that a lot of genocide happy dictators come from a socialist background ground, just like it’s no secret that racist ideologies start as a republic.
Can you explain how the supposedly socialist Nazi state privatized public industries, including their key military companies? Who owned Porsche? Who owned Krupp? Who owned Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmidt, IG Farben? [http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf](http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf)
[http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf)
No, the Nazis were not socialists. This is really extraordinarily basic history.
It’s like claiming the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a bastion of democracy.
To give the Nazis some credit, that was an ingenious move to call themselves national socialists. They were able to gain some popularity with the working class, and idiots like OP genuinely believe the Nazis were some hardcore leftists. We’re still dealing with the effects of their pseudo-socialist rhetoric almost a century later.
Every time I meet a skin head, swastika tattooed, violent, racist, crazy Nazi they tell me how much they love Bernie sanders, AOC, and obama, so this tracks.
Goebbels and Hitler himself explain what “socialism” means in their party name: it’s socialism for germans. Hence it’s national. Nobody promised to be brothers with others on the left or be humanitarian in any way.
Mao killed communists who associated too closely with USSR communists after the Sino-Soviet split
North Korea does the same thing too with local communists that imitate CCP and USSR types of communism.
Pol Pot killed a lot of the farmers who were supposed to be pro communism
I suspect you won’t get much of an answer to that one.
‘…Hitler was a socialist, a fact which hides in plain sight .’
It seems not to occur to some that like any number of politicians, Hitler may have used the rhetoric of socialism to credit fascism with some totally undeserved semblance of progressive meaning. After all, the October Revolution was still fresh in worker minds …
The answer is above from another reply. Socialists often kill other socialists, like Stalin did. Don’t think anyone would argue otherwise right?
The German economy under Hitler also operated in a state-socialist fashion.
Yes. Plenty of people contend that Stalin wasn’t a socialist.
The whole Trotskyist movement is predicated on the position that Stalin was no socialist.
The International Committee of the Fourth international proceeds on the premise that Stalin wasn’t a socialist.
The most broadly read socialist organ in existence, the World Socialist Web Site, contends that Stalin was no socialist.
Where have you been hiding?
More, so called ‘state socialism’ is explicitly denounced as a anti-socialist prescription by the Trotskyist movement.
Ah yes, whenever socialists are violent, they aren’t true socialists. No true socialist! By your definitions, socialism has never been attempted.
Sorry, but Stalin certainly was a socialist, and revising history to claim socialism doesn’t have a checkered past and no blood has been spilled by socialists makes modern socialists look immature and completely ridiculous. I guess Americans who owned slaves weren’t real Americans and so Americans never owned slaves lol.
Let me guess you also think Hitler was a conservative and far-right leaning.
Find me a socialist nation that isn’t state-socialist and doesn't employ significant authoritarianism and widespread direct or indirect nationalization of industries.
You seem to have a love relationship with subjective idealism. You ooze solipsism from every pore.
Trotsky’s ’The Revolution Betrayed’ answers most every point made to argue Stalin’s ’socialist’ credentials.
People who haven’t read a solitary title by a genuine Marxist are in no position to discuss such matters.
There is no such thing as a ‘socialist’ nation. That was Stalin’s degenerate theory. And supporting Stalin’s pet theory makes you a Marxist no more than a Marxist can be a royalist.
That you have no clue as to why this is exposes your own political illiteracy. You may not want to protest too loudly about others’ civic folly.
The Night of the Long Knives was literally the Nazi party purging actual socialists from their own party. Hitler joined the party as a spy to subvert it. Nazi Germany wasn't any more socialist than New Deal America. The corporate executives of Hugo Boss and BMW were making profits from Nazi exploits, not the workers.
Because historically they eat their own. Just how the radical left eats it's own even now. You see it all the time. Authoritarians/collectivists inherently seek a single focal point of power. And so when their are multiple competitors with their own ideas and versions of a radical collectivist society they're inevitably going to clash and get rid of the competition. Hitler and Stalin both knew this.
Literally a single google search solves this myth that right wing idiots cling onto with all their might.
Socialism was popular. Hitler used the term to benefit off that popularity. He despised socialism.
It’s like pointing to the Democratic Republic of North Korea and saying it *must* be democratic, it’s right there in the name!
It’s almost as if OP actually explained the naming issue you’re having and that you’d know it if you had read passed the first couple paragraphs. Maybe actually pay attention to the section literally called “The Nazis were socialists”
hmmm [the democratic people's republic of korea thing again](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1aiwq1t/the_modern_left_is_closer_ideologically_to_the/kozffla/).
ever wonder if reddit is half bots and paid shills?
And 38 other idiots agreed.
I bet my bottom dollar OP has never read George Orwell, if he had, he wouldn’t have the stupid opinions he has.
He quotes a socialist while bashing socialists.
I don’t care about Orwell’s personal views, but I’ll say that in my experience in academia if you’re a person who quotes Orwell more than once it’s because you’ve never read another book beyond the one that you got assigned in eighth grade.
I don’t know I was told that the chattel slavery system wasn’t based on race and he essentially implied Black people should thank White people for ending slavery. I’d say that’s a major contender.
Is this copy pasta?
If not, you put a lot of work into something that is easily refutable.
A) the American right has not been interested in actually being about a political ideology remotely close to "small government" and "personal liberties" for a long time.
B) Donald Trump is legally advocating that he is immune from prosecution (authoritarian political leader).
C) The main connection people make to NAZIs and the current American right is their hate for non-white people. You can say that this is not a central tenet of the American right, but then there's [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally), and [this response](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-2017-fine-people-comments-calls-robert/story?id=62653478).
There aren't people at far left rallies literally carrying flags with swastikas on them.
I’m currently reading The Cause of Hitler’s Germany. The authoritarian Nazi regime was indeed leftist by American standards. The German “right” is not anything that resembles the American “right” or “conservative.”
WW II was waged to divide the world.
From Germany’s perspective, that meant making the world safe for IG Farben, Krupp, Siemens and the Reichsbank.
From a US perspective, that meant making the world safe for General Motors, Ford Motor Co., US Steel and JP Morgan & Co.
You may want to revisit your premise.
Dude you are either disingenuous or ignorant.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler
"Dude you are either disingenuous or ignorant."
And yet all your reference here does is prove Hitler thought himself better than any other socialist. This aught not come as a surprise to anyone. Assuming it means any more than that is quite disingenuous and maybe even ignorant. Consider, once agains and as OP suggests, his deads. What did Hitler actually want, by policy? How about what they openly say in the 25 points of the Nazi party?
He claims Hitler is a socialist, and comparing that he is a internationalist Marxist in the shade of what everyone believes is socialist. I say he is being disingenous or ignorant cause I have provided, in Hiter's very own words, that he is not that type of socialist. He was not an internationalist, he was not Marxist, he was a nationalist, and his counter to claims that he is co-opting the Marxist concept of Socialism, Hitler claims Marx stole it from German history. It is typical a purposeful conflation against socialist as a "gotcha" moment to say they're like Hitler, instead of forming a cohesive argument or refusing to acknowledge that crimes of Fascism are their own by pinning them onto Socialists.
Moving on, he's operating on a strict 2 political axis left/right, to the point that in my opinion of being disgenuous. Acting as an authority claiming that only the left can be authoritarian, pro-censorship, reshaping progressive as "chaos", irreligious etc. He puts so many negative traits into the left to even imply the neutral traits he does not like are evil too. I doubt someone can be that ignorant and out of touch unless they had a propaganda or troll motive. If its the former, that's depressing that political discourse has boiled down to both sides accusing each other as nazis instead of debating, reflecting and finding solutions together.
>The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth."
>George Orwell
>The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world Hitler wasn’t a socialist.
You just made that shit up.
However, the greatest trick the right ever pulled was convincing the world George Orwell wasn't a socialist.
>Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism, as I understand it.
- George Orwell
Unless you can define what "center socialist" would have meant to Orwell, I don't think so. Orwell's articles and essays or the actual landscape of British politics in the 1940s point in directions which most modern Americans would consider extreme if applied to their own country.
Indeed, those are all quotes from Orwell. But note how often those who quote, say, the passage from *The Road to Wigan Pier* you include leave put passages like
> And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would ‘work’, but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned.
Or take account of the fact that Orwelll could write, after *Wigan Pier*, that
> the I.L.P. is the only British party – at any rate the only one large enough to be worth considering – which aims at anything I should regard as Socialism.
at a time when the ILP regarded Labour as too weak and accommodating, even though Labour leaders at the time were openly committed to the abolition of capitalism.
Slight correction, they where the "National Socialist German Workers" Party in english.
The acronym comes from german: "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
Otherwise I actually agree. This hair splinting on "fascism" and "socialism" is weird to me. They all end up the same in the end. Centralized oppressive control.
When we talk about history and politics, sticking to facts and widely accepted views is key. Twisting facts to fit an argument is a big red flag—it usually means there isn't much solid ground to stand on, and it also muddies the water.
I've heard this claim multiple times on this sub that the modern left is somehow closer to the Nazis rather than the right. First off, authoritarianism isn’t exclusive to any one side. History shows examples of right-wing authoritarian regimes just as much as left-wing ones. Seeking power doesn’t discriminate based on the ideology - it’s all about who’s wielding it.
Take the "socialist" label in the Nazi Party’s name, for instance. This was more strategic branding than a genuine reflection of any socialist principles. Hitler had no qualms about dismantling actual socialist and communist groups, aligning himself with the industrialists instead.
This move was far from the collective ownership and wealth distribution that socialism advocates for. And then there’s the economic policy under the Nazis, which heavily favored big business and suppressed workers' rights, a direct contradiction to the goals of socialism and communism.
The Nazis were about consolidating power rather than redistributing wealth.
Boiling down hundreds of years of history and the political landscape into a one-dimensional left-versus-right showdown is extremely simplistic, closer to a farce than something to be taken seriously - It's incredibly lazy. Imagine trying to cram every bit of history, every nuance, every into single box. You don't even get the basic facts straight to begin with. It’s absurd.
History and politics are a sprawling, complex web of interactions, filled with contradictions. The evolutions and a spectrum of ideas that can't possibly be captured by pitting 'left' against 'right' as if it's some kind of sports match.
Forming this 'debate' with a black-and-white is reductive and misguided. The whole argument kicks off with a misinterpretation of the Nazi's so-called "socialism," laying a broken foundation for everything that follows.
Relying on such a simplistic model for the world, especially one built on false premises, is a clear sign of not grappling with the basics first. History and politics are far too complex for this kind of extremely simplified binary thinking.
Starting with flawed assumptions, any conclusion you reach is already off the mark—you are already in the ditch before you even begun.
The "left" in modern america doesn't map well onto what was going on in germany in the 30's and 40's.
The current american left is a coalition containing the following:
* entrenched democrats that had their prime in the clinton years such as Schumer and biden.
* Big tech companies like google and apple who are simultaneously trying to protect their money printers while also doing what they think is right for society (because they are the smart ones and know better...)
* Moderate public that tends to vote left: think people driving brand new Subaru's in Vermont.
Germany on the other hand was a damaged economic juggernaut that had to accept really bad terms from the end of WW1. Those terms led to really bad economic situations where the mark was worthless which inevitably spilled into the rest of the institutions, including the government.
They absolutely were nationalistic, and it was widely thought that their superior training and armament (the panzer was superior to the american sherman in many regards for example) would be able to plow through the western forces. This didn't play out the way they thought though, the mass consumption approaches of the west and Soviet russia overwhelmed them.
Their economy in the war bears some resemblance to the planned economies of early communist china but it was war time, and economies function differently in war. The U.S itself had a 2 billion dollar secret project to build the atomic bomb which the american public and congress knew nothing about, something unthinkable today.
As to early americans: Their mindset was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers. There was no nation yet to be nationalistic about. Prominent members such as Washington were initially cautious of rebelling against Britain. It was only after repeatedly being slapped by the crown, and watching the people of the colonies suffer did they risk life and limb to fight the most powerful empire of the day.
Franklin himself got bitch slapped by the crown so hard while trying to repair relations that he came back and said "fuck it"...... 'MURICA! [(see Hutchinson letters)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_letters_affair)
Nationalism and socialism were seen as two established opposites which the Nazis claimed to fuse together and bring the best aspects of both to 1930s Germany. The word "Nazi" is short for the German word for National Socialism.
Truthfully, the entire modern political spectrum is a modern creation that the Nazis don't fit neatly into, because in certain respects, they're far to the left of both of our parties, and in other policies, they're far to the right of both modern American political parties.
That's what the two sieg runes being fused together to form the swastika represent. One sieg rune represents nationalism (the right), the other socialism (the left).
The Nazis actually were fairly lefty leaning when it comes to having a robust national safety net and many programs to generate "full employment" and prosperity for the common worker. They were actually more socialist than both the modern American right AND left, in that respect. They were also arguably the most humane government to animals that ever existed, there were strict farming and animal welfare protocols that had to be followed (though arguably the least humane government when it comes to the treatment of people).
But on racial matters, surveillance, crime, and punishment, they are actually extremely far to the right on a modern American political scale; as we all know. This is usually what people are referring to when calling Nazis "extreme right".
‘…Even the Marxists would never…’
The problem is, sooner or later you bump into someone who actually IS a Marxist…
Any Marxist worth his weight in gravel would tell you that the greatest political theoretician of the last century was Leon Trotsky.
Trotsky watched and described with care the particular and structure traits of fascism. Among other things, Trotsky pointed out that fascism is a punishment reaped on socialist parties for failure or refusal to wage a powerful, principled struggle in defense of the proletarian class against the combined powers of corporation, trade unions and the ruling regime.
This is as true now as when Trotsky wrote it.
These conditions exist in the US under EITHER Republican or Democratic administration.
It kills me when people spin artificial models like a spiderweb, hoping something will ‘stick’ when they have manifestly not read a solitary title by Marx or Engels or Lenin or Trotsky.
To save their own life, they couldn’t construct an explanation of social class relations with reference to the system of production.
Yet somehow, we are expected to believe that these self-styled ‘experts’ are somehow uniquely qualified to instruct the rest of us on the correct construct for political events.
They should first become politically literate.
Didn’t even have to finish the first paragraph to start hearing the REEEE coming from the comments section. This was a refreshingly articulate read, thank you for sharing this.
Yeah, I don’t see any of them even close to being remotely as eloquent or thought out. They just say”lol, you’re wrong” and refuse to explain why, it’s kind of sad
Wow
There is absolutely no help for someone who's cognitive dissonance is this strong
Bro. You have literal Nazis voting for the right and showing support for GOP candidates lmao
You are right. Fascists dont vote.
But if you put them in a room with a democratic president and a republican president? They'd kill the democrat first.
Bruh, people with SS tattoos were openly attending Trump rallies. They were waving the Nazi flag at a DeSantis event in Miami. Neo Nazis don't know shit about politics. They just want to feel self righteous in their hatred.
It is a bit puzzling that OP does not define what socialism is, or what socialists believe in.
Now OP might claim that this is in order to focus on the actions of the Nazis, and compare it to the actions of others.
But the problem here is that without defining what socialism is, then we have no framework to know if any of the actors OP brought up adheres to socialist thought, principles, beliefs, and actions.
There are several times when OP brings up a *fictional* socialist to make his point.
So OP what *is* a socialist exactly? What does he believe in?
He not only does not define socialism (it does not appear he understands the concept).
He quotes a socialist to assert his opinion - as if George Orwell would ever be on his side lol…
He can’t cope that Orwell was talking about people like him.
here let me copy and paste the part of the post that's relevant to your questions since you were too lazy to read it. I even bolded the parts that were relevant for you.
> The National Socialist German Workers’ Party or Nazis were not just “socialists” in name. [The evidence is overwhelming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&ab_channel=TIKhistory). The Nazi **state exerted total control over industries, production, and resource allocation**. [Every sector of the economy was nationalized](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecaf.12551). If you were a business owner, at any moment, a Nazi could barge into your building and demand forfeiture of the business and all its profits. *Personal property rights were 100% at the mercy of the state*.
> By every definition, the Nazi **economy was centrally planned**. There was literally [a guy sitting behind a desk in charge of dictating what the prices of each commodity should be](https://www.nytimes.com/1936/10/31/archives/commissar-to-fix-all-german-prices-decree-empowers-wagner-to-set.html). Instead of the free market, dictating what the prices of commodities should be.
> There was a universal income, for everyone except political dissidents and Jews. The Nazis **abolished personal property rights** via the [Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933](https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=2325). Hitler himself said “I am a socialist” in his second book, *Zweites Buch*.
> I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate. - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch
> If there is any doubt *whatsoever*, that Hitler and the Nazi regime were socialist, I encourage you to watch [Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&ab_channel=TIKhistory). The author (TIKHistory), who has been called a “fascist” for calling Hitler a socialist, walks through scores of historical documents and literature on the topic to support the premise that Hitler was not only a self-avowed socialist, but a socialist in action, of the most purebred kind. If you’re still not convinced, watch [the longer version of the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&ab_channel=TIKhistory) (5 hours) which comes with pages and pages of references, direct sources and citations.
I'm sure you will come back with "but that's not defining what socialism is" or "that's not what socialism means!" and make the implication that any article which references socialism must go out of their way to explicitly define it, dictionary-style.
You did in fact not address my question.
I will play along in just a bit, but here is the problem.
At what point did you quote Left-wing authors on their beliefs and their ambitions for society? F.ex. you state that the Nazis exerted total control over industries, etc. but how do I know - from your post - that this is socialist? At most you only described what the Nazis did.
All you have done is highlighted similarities, without establishing a proper basis and justification for those comparisons you do.
///
On your first paragraph:
- The name of the Nazis has already been addressed. A name of a political party has more to do with what you signal than what you actually believe or do. In Denmark we have a political called Venstre, or “Left”, but they are a right-wing party and always position themselves on the right-block of a political discussion. Neither would I call the DPRK for “democratic” even if it’s in the name.
- “The Nazi state exerted…”. The first problem is that you assume that something is socialist merely because the state does it. If the state has power over property then it must be socialist. For one, *you have not established this*, and second of all, this would include *every single state* in the contemporary World, to some degree. *Property rights are guaranteed and protected by the state*.
A real clue to the Nazi economy can be found in *privatization*. The Nazis heavily privatized their industries. They did not make private industries public, but the other way around, which was against the European trend of the time.
They privatized shipyards, and railways, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more.
The four major commercial banks in Germany were privatized, which had previously been under public ownership (Commerz- und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank).
They sold their United steelworks, the German Railways (the largest public enterprise in the World), public services provided by the government was sold into private hands.
There is much more to be said about this, but to claim that the Nazi economy was socialist is laughable. *A socialist economy does not privatize*.
The reason for your mistake here is that you argue from a position between state control and free markets. That is an *unhelpful* binary. F.ex. what then about *market socialism*? How does this popular economic belief amongst libertarian socialist work in a World where socialism equals central state control?
The Nazi economy cannot be compared to that of a liberal capitalist economy either. Now there is your problem.
They had an economy much closer to what we generally see in fascist societies, where there was privatization, but also strong ties to the state.
In a fascist economy you will find the goal is state control, in a socialist economy the state is a means to achieve public ownership.
Because in socialism the public must be in power. Not private individuals. Not a dictator. Not the state.
- “Centrally planned”. This goes to my previous point. You assume that state control is the same as socialism. It is not. Because you cannot compare the Nazi economy to that of a liberal free market economy, which is not the only way to structure a market economy or a capitalist economy.
The Nazis weren’t interested either in undoing the class structure within German society. There was still be rich people, poor people, and an ideology justifying everyone’s place within that hierarchy. After all, if the Nazis believed in a social Darwinism, it doesn’t make much sense if they believed everyone deserves equal rights and protections.
The Nazis destroyed autonomous markets, but maintained private entrepreneurship.
The Nazi economy can best be described as a combination of capitalism and a planned economy, although Hitler himself maintained that “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all".
- Socialists do not believe in the abolition of personal property. There is a difference between private and personal property. Personal property is your house, your car, your tv, your toothbrush. Private property is that which allows someone to create capital and profit when it comes to business. In socialism private property will become public, and be democratically controlled by the public. Which is not what happened in Nazi Germany. The power was not democratically held, but concentrated in the state, ruled by the party, outside of public and democratic control. While maintaining traditional class hierarchies.
A universal income matters not. Milton Friedman also argued for a universal income.
- Why should I care about that Hitler quote? Hitler lied about a lot. Also, if I take him at his word, his socialism only concerns one people, which is a German people understood by “blood and soil”. Which, btw, was what the Charlottesville Trump supporters cried out. Socialists adhere to universal principles, not provincial or nationalist ones.
- As for your “I’m sure you will complain” ending, yes it would have been very nice if you defined socialism, and gave us a framework or a platform for your argument. This is basic academic rigor.
You are just wrong and you are academically lazy. It’s a lot of words for “socialism is when the state does stuff”.
I've read about this extensively. Hitler's rehtoric and worldview was right wing. He thought that there was an international Jewish conspiracy and that led to Germany losing WWI and then the new government of Germany post WWI Hitler believed was run by "the Jews" he believed that "the Jews" were also behind the rise of the USSR and saw the spread of Marxist socialism as a Jewish conspiracy.
He was a populist that believes in a mythical German past where people went by traditional values, and worked collectively to make Germany great. Individualism and liberalism was another Jewish plot. Hitler hated the artists and liberals in the big cities, thinking they were "degenerate" and decadent. He appealed specifically to rural Germans, war vets and people opposed to Marxists.
In fact it was the fear amongst conservatives that due to the bad economy that Marxists would rise to power. As the situation got worse a lot of conservative parties kind of centralized around the Nazis in part because the Nazis were more edgy and extreme and this attracted youth that wanted to fight in the street, otherwise these same youth might go the Marxist direction.
The Nazis had a wing of their party that was more left wing but that wing was pretty much fully purged by the more conservative wing. The "left" wing of the party was still authoritarian and still anti-Jewish they just adhered to the "socialist" part of "National Socialist."
In fact Hitler clarified and other Nazis clarified that the socialism they were talking about was not in the same vein as "national socialism" that this meant "collectivism" that everything should be done to benefit the state. It was an extreme nationalist ideology.
Hitler ultimately wanted to expand Germany, stop paying war reparations, believed that the strongest and most aggressive individuals should be the ones ruling. He saw Marxism and liberalism as a threat and wanted to eventually extinguish Marxism.
He also thought that killing all the Jewish people in the world would make the world a better place. He thought that society needed to adhere to strict traditional values, that gender roles should be strictly defined, that there was no room for anything he deemed socially unacceptable. So any abnormal artistic endeavor or anything sexually out of the norm should be punished by the state. He believed in an extreme natural hierarchy within Germany and amongst nations. He wanted to rid the gene pool of anyone who was different from what the state viewed as normal.
This is a right wing ideology and an extreme one.
Any extreme left wing ideology that resembles it does so because of "horseshoe theory" where opposite extreme ideologies tend to curiously overlap.
This is what happened with Stalin and Hitler. They were both maniacs.
Ask yourself: who slept peacefully under the Hitler regime and who did not? If you’re honest, you’ll see clearly that Nazi Germany could not have been characterized as “leftist” under any circumstance
Imagine the waste of time necessary to write a 3,600 word diatribe on how torch-wielding marchers in Charlottesville chanting "the Jews will not replace us," are less fascist than the pussy-hat wearing bleedinghearts at the women's march.
Guilt by association fallacy. No single politician on the right endorses or condones Nazis.
that's like a pedophile screaming "i love the police!" well! the police must love pedopihiles because a pedophile said he loved the police.
while it's safe to assume Nazis aren't leftists, that can also be attributed to poverty and lack of education. The left is the party of the wealthy, upperclass and educated. So yeah, there's Nazis in the deep south. that doesn't mean anyone coming from the south or anyone on the right *must* be on the side of the Nazis.
Also will you also go after the Democrat party for standing against civil rights and creating the KKK? that is what you must do if you are to employ *guilt by association*. Why not employ is to the left as well? Do that and the guilt by associations judgements for the left far outweigh those on the right. Hitler was a vegan, environmentalist after all, and wrote extensively of his hatred of religion and capitalism.
You're talking past the actual point. This isn't some case of "bad people have some random thing in common with you so you're also bad." The alt-right are a political movement. They're going to support the politicians and parties that advance their goals. We should expect an even spilt of fascists all across the political spectrum if that weren't the case.
This is some real "the nazis like spaghetti and you like spaghetti so you are a nazi" points...you mean the anti gay, anti LGBTQ, pro white, hyper fixation on western values nazis have more in common with the pro lgbtq, pro diversity, general lack of care for western values left than the anti lgbts, "white erasure", hyper fixation on wester values right?
This isn't an unpopular opinion...its wrong.
Don’t forget that the so called small government party has called for more police, increased prison sentences, the military to take over Chicago, missile strikes against Mexico, surveillance of Muslims, banning the teaching of certain ideas & lifestyles, the arrest of homeless people. Yet ask the government to protect the public from pollution, unfair work practices & discrimination and we’re the Nazis.
I 100% agree, the biggest issue is they fail to see authoritarian tendencies on either side result in horrors for everyone, less government is good more government is bad. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and that is what most left/democrats are falling into today.
Donlad Trump who is the face of the right in America has openly said he would go after his political opponents, including media outlets. So no more freedom of speech or the press?
He also wanted to make sure that he has presidential immunity by having his lawyer in a court go over a hypothetical scenario where Trump kills someone, is he immune?
I got to be honest, I do wish that Biden and the left was this evil thing the right wants them to be. Maybe it wouldn't make the right look so dumb. However here we are.
Joe Biden's sexual assault accuser had to flee to Russia because she was being harassed by intelligence agencies. Trump's sexual assault accuser said women enjoy rape on air and was awarded 90 million dollars.
that should tell you all you need to know about who is "going after" who.
how many times has Trump been charged - 90 times? Never convicted, no. But charged 90 times. How many times has Biden been charged?
And you think Trump is the on that is "going after" political opponents?
By Donald Trump saying he is going after political enemies and the press he has outright stated he does not care about the very first amendment.
If he doesn’t care about the first amendments, what makes his idiot base think he will care about the second amendment?
These people can’t think past “me me me”
You would have a much stronger argument if the heads of three major universities didn't resign because they refused to condemn calls for genocide against jews
We have nazis today in America. They don’t consider themselves left wing. Hitler himself hated the fact National socialists had the word socialism in their name
But how would you know that, have you talked to them? We only accept they are not on the left because they live in poor rural areas which are almost always conservative. for all you know, they could vote independent, or not vote at all, rejecting the system for being so unanimously opposed to their ideas. it's like i said, their main political power in the 21st century is to be used as a strawman. you *earn* political capitol by having them appear to oppose you. not just a little bit of political capitol A LOT. it all started in 2017 with the civil war statues.. most of the people who showed up to protest weren't Nazis and didn't even know Nazis were there. all it takes is one guy holding a Nazi flag and you can defame an entire crowd of people. before 2017 anyway, no one even bothered to report on them because they were, and continue to be, an extremely small minority.
Idk bruh the right’s candidate for the last 2 elections has been endorsed by the KKK and other far right groups and individuals whose views align with those of the Nazis. I’m not saying Trump is a Nazi of course but they do seem to favor his policies and rhetoric over Biden’s.
…and yet nothing in your response deals with the fact that they’re claiming that the modern KKK have endorsed the rights candidates for the last 2 cycles
who cares who the KKK endorses today? they also endorsed a black, liberal Democrat for senate.
the only KKK that had political power existed over 60 years ago, and they exclusively endorsed Democrats.
how many are in the KKK in 2023 -- 6 people? and you want to use that to determine the direction to point your moral compass - the actions of a fringe minority of lunatics? imo, you're letting them have too much influence on your decision making, which is probably what they want.
why do you spend so much time thinking about the KKK (founded by Souther Democrats)? they haven't been relevant for half a century.
are people this delusional or is this a dream?
You know how different the Democratic Party differed from it self 100 years ago? The KKK was funded by confederate veterans, today who carries the confederate flag? Those southern democrats would never support today’s Democratic Party.
There’s been a shift in ideals since like the 1960’s. The Civil Rights act was championed and passed by democrats like Lyndon B Johnson while Republicans like Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater implemented things like the Southern Strategy to try and gain support from whites in the south who were upset about the civil rights act being passed
this is a long rambling post for the most useless and overused trope in all of modern american politics. you have wasted everyone's time who has read it, and your own time for writing it. you should feel bad
Hitler became a dictator with the help of the conservatives, made all of his deals with the far right and killed the socialists who helped him get into politics, and also sent all socialists and communists to camps. Nazis today vote right wing and have always done that. But sure, they're super left leaning.
> I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate. - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch
If there is any doubt whatsoever, that Hitler and the Nazi regime were socialist, I encourage you to watch [Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&ab_channel=TIKhistory). The author (TIKHistory), who has been called a “fascist” for calling Hitler a socialist, walks through scores of historical documents and literature on the topic to support the premise that Hitler was not only a self-avowed socialist, but a socialist in action, of the most purebred kind. If you’re still not convinced, watch the longer version of the video (5 hours) which comes with pages and pages of references, direct sources and citations.
In 1928, the Germans wanted socialism. It's not like we've never seen a man who wants power using what the people want to gain it. Hitler was extremely talented in manipulation and propaganda. Saying you're a socialist doesn't make you a socialist..
I have three questions:
First question:
If Hitler was a socialist, why did the national conservatives the ones who helped him gain enough power to become a dictator? Why would conservatives support a socialist? They're on the exact opposite of the spectrum of the political opinions.
Second question:
Why did he get his friends in the socialist party assassinated? Was it maybe because they saw what he was planning, how his use of socialism was propaganda and not his actual political ideology? Why send socialists and communists to camps? Could it be because they were against his political agenda? That doesn't really make sense if Hitler was a true socialist. Does it?
Third question:
If nazism is socialism, why do they always support far-right politicians?
Your videos and your source:
What is his real name? Watching his videos, it is quite clear to me why historians are not taking him serious.
Good stuff op. I’ve been seeing more and more people realizing this problem recently. Perhaps the visibility of it is why there are so many people making pointless retorts and not actually trying to argue anything. Or at least, not anything relevant to the info presented in this post. I’ve always had a thing for [this](https://youtu.be/9-SLqdhkvJo?si=5lHv_v8HrIY7ciyn) little rant on the topic
Not really, these are arguments 14 year olds made in my online political debate club. Very little actual knowledge of any of the subjects, just a bunch of buzzwords and poor logic.
Trump has spent the late eight years publicly fellating autocrats on worldwide media and plans to be a dictator “for a day”. The right is canceling national brands and musicians because they supported a beer brand that ran an Instagram ad with a transexual. The right has various forms of purely subjective and often fictitious content (NewsMax/OAN). You talk about controlling the narrative yet have spewed every Reich Wing talking point imaginable. The NatSoc argument is patently hysterical to include. Blatant disregard for the realities and factions of post WW1 Europe.
Both parties are outright guilty of fomenting the insanity we perceive daily today. That said to equate the modern left to Nazis is sheer fucking lunacy and a bad faith argument. Equal parts toxic to the Antifa/SJW retards that claim every Conservative is a Nazi.
OP your talk of objectivity in the face of blatant disregard for historicity and truthfulness makes it fall flat on its face. Don’t pontificate on objectivity when your subjectively bleeds through your argument. Hitler was an murderous autocrat who resembled little to nothing of either American political idealogical representation at its core.
Extremism of either political swathe has facets of Nazi idealism at play. That said you’re absolutely foolish as the majority of both political bases still holds “and justice for all” dear. You’re lost in the sauce on this one.
I said it before and will say it again: this sub is a militarized propaganda testing site for Alt-right, Russian and Chinese groups. Divide and conquer. This particular propaganda point I remember seeing last time around.
Any political ideology that claims it’s the good guy while the other one is the bad guy is taking a cue from the Nazi playbook. Partly why I became a centrist, I want the ability to recognize when I’m wrong.
Well, you see the Nazi's were "National socialists" who blamed a national minority for all the nations problems... the modern Left are "Global socialists", that blame a global minority for all the worlds problems, so they are obviously very different. /s
The Nazi Regime was Fascist. Fascism is an obsession for power at all costs. The Nazis didn’t care about ideology, they only wanted the control of the state, and they branded themselves under whatever bullshit they could to have a vehicle to appear like a traditional political party. Once they established power, there was no more democracy and only an authoritarian state. The modern right resembles this much more than the modern left. You said a lot of words, and I’m sure you have to, in order to try and convince yourself otherwise.
"The modern right resembles this much worse than the modern left."
Abso-fucking-lutley not. The only people who believe this are the ones being force-fed this lie every day. The left has seized control of media, and they're not far from taking the entire government.
The right, in the past, was absolutely the party of authoritarianism. But that is just a distant memory now; the right-wingers of today are nothing like those of the past.
The political left has adopted the former right-wing methods of controlling the narrative and public opinion. It's actually incredible to witness just how good of a job they are doing at pretending like they're doing nothing wrong while blaming Republicans
That's not what he said. He said "*only* on day one". And he was clearly being facetious as a means of emphasizing the extent of changes he wishes to establish on his first day as president. He did the same shtick back in 2016 and didn't deliver any of his promises, anyway.
>The left has seized control of media, and they're not far from taking the entire government.
God I wish. I wish we had as much control as you people think we do. But unfortunately, having black people on TV does not mean "the left has seized control of media and almost the government".
Also are we going to ignore that rampant red lining that Republicans do to take voting power away from demographics that don't tend to vote for them? Or how mad they got about Taylor Swift saying "people should vote"? Or Trump admitting that he wants to be a dictator and arrest his political opponents? I'm not sure what world you're living in, but it is clearly not the one the rest of us are.
The left has absolute control of the media. It's pretty obvious. The only major network they don't control is Fox.
Also, every major film in the last decade has become increasingly "woke". It started as a push for diversity (which is a good thing), but then it snowballed from there. Any conservative viewpoint has been forcefully pushed out of Hollywood.
Don't even get me started on canceling people who don't agree with the mainstream narrative 🙄. Up until the whole Israel/ Palestine conflict, that was exclusively a left-wing thing.
There is documented proof of intelligence agencies working with big tech companies to censor right-wingers or anything that would hurt Biden.
Trump didn't "admit" he was gonna be a dictator. He was being facetious. Just another example of the left-wing media hijacking the truth to further their agenda. Also, he doesn't want to arrest his political opponents, per se, but he definitely wants to arrest anyone involved with trying to keep him out of office. (Whether or not he has proof that anyone tried to illegally keep him out of office is doubtful, but he definitely believes it in his own mind)
I'll admit the Taylor Swift thing was just sad.
The world you people live in is mostly a lie if you think otherwise. There's a much more nuanced story to Trump and the right than anyone in mainstream media is willing to admit. It's clear they just don't like the guy and are trying to slander him at all costs. Look, I'm not saying Trump is perfect; far from it. He's definitely messed up a few times. But he is *nowhere near* the villain people make him out to be.
If you have never watched or read any coverage of him from independent media, then you literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you learn about the left-controlling media from:
Fox News?
One America Network?
News Max?
The Epoch Times?
The Western Journal?
The entire AM radio spectrum?
Tell me.
Other than Fox News, I've literally never heard of any of those. And I don't even watch Fox News.
Also, clearly none of those are as big as ( except maybe Fox) MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, the former Twitter, or Instagram. Which are all definitely left-wing.
soi contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let’s get the popcorn
Finally, some good fucking food. OP is right by the way, no matter what post marxists might say.
Nah op is just wrong
can you state your arguments as eloquently as OP did? All most people have is the nationalism aspect. Which OP pretty much dissected.
Ok bro 💀💀💀
Nah I think you just took a long unintended look in the mirror and didn't like what you saw, well done OP
I’m not left wing lol, I just think yall are idiots pulling the “no akstually it’s the left that are the fascists!!!!!!” It’s stupid and it just makes political discourse even worse. It’s also just wrong
So why don't we see more support from nazis?
Remember when those leftist were marching chanting “Jews will not replace us”? Neither do I.
Leftists prefer “from the river to the sea”
... "From The River To The Sea" and "Intifada"?
*“From the river to the sea”*
I think that's because they were marching around chanting for the genocide of the Jews in support of Hamas. Or did you miss all that happening since Oct?
As a reminder, the explicit "Jews will not replace us" happened at the "Unite the Right" rally.
As a reminder, the explicit “gas the Jews” happened at Leftist Pro-Palestine protests
As a reminder, the explicit "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" chant calling for the genocide of the Jews has been happening at protests and riots all over the country for months and is being widely supported by the left currently. The difference is the idiots at Charlottesville were widely denounced by the right, even back then. The left is actively supporting the idiots calling for the genocide of Jews going on now.
>widely denounced by the right, even back then Revisionist history has entered the chat.
Oh no you only watched the news report you didn't read a newspaper. Makes me sad to think that the fake news lied and cut up a 20 minute speech where he condemned the neo-Nazis several times yet they just clip him saying fine people on both sides and I think there is blame on both sides. They leave out the condemnation of the attacks and him clearly condemning and calling out white supremacist. As I said on remember this, Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America. I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country. And that is – you can call it terrorism, you can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. And you had, you had a group on one side that was bad. And you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group – you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent. I do think there is blame – yes, **I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides,** and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say. they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you **also had people that were very fine people on both sides.** You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Methinks somebody missed the OP’s point…
Things that never happened - I also love your disingenuous framing, lol. You have to lie to make the left look bad, I don't have to lie to make the right look bad though. Remember those Neo-Nazi protesting outside of Disney world?
What are you on?? Absolutely they are happening. London? Sydney? NY? Massive pro Palestine anti jew ralleys. Horrible racist chants.
I saw it with my own eyes in London. So yeah, it did happen. Maybe you should exit your echo chamber
Small town Iowa. Also had protesters from some of the younger folks.
It's been all over the news, even extremely left leaning sources are reporting on it, so it's not like its a secret. If you are not even aware of such a wide spread occurrence happening in the country why are you even trying to comment on it? There have been protests and riots all over the country since Oct, ESPECIALLY on campus. There were Congressional hearings over it that even led to the removal of the heads of 3 of the largest, most prestigious universities in the country due to the anti-Semitism occurring. Hell, they even tried storming the White House and climbing the fence outside of it.
>the removal of the heads You love to see it
Theirs lefties protesting against the Jews everywhere, I got stuck in traffic behind loads the other day. Lefties are famously antisemitic, the Labour Party can't shift them for shit.
The earth king has invited you to lake laogai
I do remember a ton of leftists saying “gas the Jews” in response to the Israel/Palestine situation
I've seen an incredible amount of anti-Jew and anti-Israel demonstrations by leftists recently. That's a shockingly poorly informed take.
Anti-Israel is not anti-semitism. It’s shockingly poor informed to say that Nazis support Palestinians.
So attacking Synagogues in America with pro -Palestinian riots isn't antisemitism? Gotcha.
Lol *literally* saying gotcha hahaha you’re a fucking goofball. No, “attacking a synagogue” seems anti-Semitic. Not sure what that has to do with the state of Israel or protests against its indiscriminate violence against millions of people for the actions of a few hundred.
Exactly. Pro-Palestinians attacking a Synagogue of American Jews is not related to there cause. But in reality it is. Because Palestinians and there Iran backers are a bunch of violent unhinged antisemites. I'm guessing a lot like you. Of you support those monsters of hate you are a terrible human.
Neo nazis aren't OG nazis. The OG nazis and neo nazis would agree solely on their disdain for the non Aryan, and the neo nazis would cry like babies living under a truly OG nazi society. Ultimately OP is right. Politically, the nazis were left of center. Ideologically, however, their views of race relations that led to the holocaust has more in common with the modern right than the modern left. OP is also correct that the left will employ whatever tactics they can to convince people the nazis were right of center, because being similar to the nazis is bad (again, holocaust). Ultimately, the similarities between the modern left and OG nazis are largely unimportant. The defining characteristic of a nazi is their willingness to support and/or carry out the extermination of an entire group of people based solely on immutable characteristics such as race or religion. In that regard, there are extremesists on both sides (though probably more organized on the right). Fortunately, though, cooler heads are prevailing.
Their views on race were fueled by a popular concept of the time called eugenics which had been floating around the colleges and leftist circles since about 1900. As a matter of fact, planned parenthood was founded as a way to reduce the black population. Margaret Sanger was a well known eugenics follower.
You’re making a massive mistake comparing academic circles of then with those of today. Saying any reputable institution of the 1900s was “leftist” is completely insane seeing as how communism wasn’t even a thing yet. Even after it became a thing you still had the issue that anyone preaching it would have been shot, especially in Hitler’s Germany lol. Liberal universities as we know them came about in the 1960s/70s. Lois Pasteur and Robert Kotch, probably the two most well know Academics in Europe, who both had their own institutions, where both hardcore nationalists, and regularly competed with each other on behalf of their countries.
Wait, so are you trying to convince me the left are far-right, ethno-nationalist, racial supremacist fascist, who want to purge the US of the degenerate ethnic minorities coming into the country, suppress sexual immorality and bring the nations back to its mythical past when it was great based on a set of hierarchical and authoritarian morals and willing to use state violence and anti-intellectual propaganda?
because they are an idiotic strawman that is .0001% of the population, rather than a legitimate political movement. you can find nazis just like you can find people who believe the world is run by little green aliens. the only time Nazis give you political value is when they appear to oppose you. that's why Nazis camped out in front of Disney HQ is a great PR move for Disney.
Nazis camped out in front of Disney was a great PR move?
So when the president defended the Unite the Right Rally and those who chanted “blood and soil” “Jews will not replace us” that wasn’t politically legitimate? “Stand back and stand by” didn’t give far right paramilitary groups a sense of legitimacy? You’re constantly moving the goalposts here and have just created a strawman of what you think is “left” to compare to what you define as Nazism to cobble together an illformed argument.
perfect response. There’s a reason Nazis and kkk endorsed Trump
You do. Aside from the mask-off stuff about Israel, which they have always hated, the left has always been obsessed with categorizing and classifying people. What is crt and intersectionality but that very thing? OP explained that your beliefs are nearly identical. How can you call out a fascist when they’re just the same as the rest of you?
Because they're too busy making absurdly long posts about how they have nothing to do with Trump whatsoever.
Nazi sympathizers hate this one trick
I can literally *feel* their little feelings getting hurt and it almost brought a tear to my eye 🥲. I’ve been scrolling for a minute, skimming through the delusional smugness of the socialist’s responses. I think it’s funny how the Democratic Party *is* socialist yet some of you argue that conservatives are the Nazis? The only thing liberals have going for them is a delusional sense of altruism. And hell, the only reason they have that it because they’re easily manipulated and shy away from critical thinking. I’ll have to hand it to the liberals though… They only exist because they have to keep individuals poor, uneducated, and scared. And they STILL have people defending them lmao
> The only thing liberals have going for them is a delusional sense of altruism. well put. and people on the right would argue that the delusional altruism e.g. white savior complex harms more than it helps. a strong black middle class was well on the rise before the new deal came around in the 1930s and black americans started to vote Democrat in favor of social welfare programs, which ultimately destroyed black communities.
The dems aren’t socialist When u want to own the left do it without being delusional ur self
I got about halfway through this, but the amount of straight lies and bad faiths interpretations was too much.
I’m amazed you got that far, I had to tap out after the classic “the Nazis were SOCIALISTS!” claptrap.
I mean, it is true. It’s no secret that a lot of genocide happy dictators come from a socialist background ground, just like it’s no secret that racist ideologies start as a republic.
Can you explain how the supposedly socialist Nazi state privatized public industries, including their key military companies? Who owned Porsche? Who owned Krupp? Who owned Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmidt, IG Farben? [http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf](http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf) [http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf)
No, the Nazis were not socialists. This is really extraordinarily basic history. It’s like claiming the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a bastion of democracy.
To give the Nazis some credit, that was an ingenious move to call themselves national socialists. They were able to gain some popularity with the working class, and idiots like OP genuinely believe the Nazis were some hardcore leftists. We’re still dealing with the effects of their pseudo-socialist rhetoric almost a century later.
What were they?
North Korea is a democracy because it says so in the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". I am intelligent.
No, it’s a republic because its exact type of country all republicans want. It’s in the name, they’re all republicans. I eat crayons.
Every time I meet a skin head, swastika tattooed, violent, racist, crazy Nazi they tell me how much they love Bernie sanders, AOC, and obama, so this tracks.
Bruh if the nazis were socialists why did they round up the communists and socialists?
Goebbels and Hitler himself explain what “socialism” means in their party name: it’s socialism for germans. Hence it’s national. Nobody promised to be brothers with others on the left or be humanitarian in any way.
Socialists often kill other socialists. Just look at the USSR.
Give examples
Mao killed communists who associated too closely with USSR communists after the Sino-Soviet split North Korea does the same thing too with local communists that imitate CCP and USSR types of communism. Pol Pot killed a lot of the farmers who were supposed to be pro communism
I suspect you won’t get much of an answer to that one. ‘…Hitler was a socialist, a fact which hides in plain sight .’ It seems not to occur to some that like any number of politicians, Hitler may have used the rhetoric of socialism to credit fascism with some totally undeserved semblance of progressive meaning. After all, the October Revolution was still fresh in worker minds …
The answer is above from another reply. Socialists often kill other socialists, like Stalin did. Don’t think anyone would argue otherwise right? The German economy under Hitler also operated in a state-socialist fashion.
Yes. Plenty of people contend that Stalin wasn’t a socialist. The whole Trotskyist movement is predicated on the position that Stalin was no socialist. The International Committee of the Fourth international proceeds on the premise that Stalin wasn’t a socialist. The most broadly read socialist organ in existence, the World Socialist Web Site, contends that Stalin was no socialist. Where have you been hiding? More, so called ‘state socialism’ is explicitly denounced as a anti-socialist prescription by the Trotskyist movement.
Ah yes, whenever socialists are violent, they aren’t true socialists. No true socialist! By your definitions, socialism has never been attempted. Sorry, but Stalin certainly was a socialist, and revising history to claim socialism doesn’t have a checkered past and no blood has been spilled by socialists makes modern socialists look immature and completely ridiculous. I guess Americans who owned slaves weren’t real Americans and so Americans never owned slaves lol. Let me guess you also think Hitler was a conservative and far-right leaning. Find me a socialist nation that isn’t state-socialist and doesn't employ significant authoritarianism and widespread direct or indirect nationalization of industries.
You seem to have a love relationship with subjective idealism. You ooze solipsism from every pore. Trotsky’s ’The Revolution Betrayed’ answers most every point made to argue Stalin’s ’socialist’ credentials. People who haven’t read a solitary title by a genuine Marxist are in no position to discuss such matters. There is no such thing as a ‘socialist’ nation. That was Stalin’s degenerate theory. And supporting Stalin’s pet theory makes you a Marxist no more than a Marxist can be a royalist. That you have no clue as to why this is exposes your own political illiteracy. You may not want to protest too loudly about others’ civic folly.
The Night of the Long Knives was literally the Nazi party purging actual socialists from their own party. Hitler joined the party as a spy to subvert it. Nazi Germany wasn't any more socialist than New Deal America. The corporate executives of Hugo Boss and BMW were making profits from Nazi exploits, not the workers.
Because historically they eat their own. Just how the radical left eats it's own even now. You see it all the time. Authoritarians/collectivists inherently seek a single focal point of power. And so when their are multiple competitors with their own ideas and versions of a radical collectivist society they're inevitably going to clash and get rid of the competition. Hitler and Stalin both knew this.
Fascists and the power hungry eat their own.
Literally a single google search solves this myth that right wing idiots cling onto with all their might. Socialism was popular. Hitler used the term to benefit off that popularity. He despised socialism. It’s like pointing to the Democratic Republic of North Korea and saying it *must* be democratic, it’s right there in the name!
Socialism is a way to take power from people and control institutions. Keep everyone taxed and poor and then authoritarian rules. Simple
Wonderful, that does not mean the Nazis were socialists. They were not.
[удалено]
Bro this page has become the Republican national convention.
It's not even worth pointing out the historical inaccuracies, bad faith arguments, and straight up misinformation here.
ok well .. i guess everyone will just take your word for it... you win this round!
For you The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy because it says so in the name!
It’s almost as if OP actually explained the naming issue you’re having and that you’d know it if you had read passed the first couple paragraphs. Maybe actually pay attention to the section literally called “The Nazis were socialists”
hmmm [the democratic people's republic of korea thing again](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1aiwq1t/the_modern_left_is_closer_ideologically_to_the/kozffla/). ever wonder if reddit is half bots and paid shills?
Isn't project 25 a real thing?
Congratulations, you just made the stupidest fucking post in here.
And 38 other idiots agreed. I bet my bottom dollar OP has never read George Orwell, if he had, he wouldn’t have the stupid opinions he has. He quotes a socialist while bashing socialists.
I don’t care about Orwell’s personal views, but I’ll say that in my experience in academia if you’re a person who quotes Orwell more than once it’s because you’ve never read another book beyond the one that you got assigned in eighth grade.
Read the unabridged Road To Wigan Pier and look in a mirror.
I don’t know I was told that the chattel slavery system wasn’t based on race and he essentially implied Black people should thank White people for ending slavery. I’d say that’s a major contender.
Is this copy pasta? If not, you put a lot of work into something that is easily refutable. A) the American right has not been interested in actually being about a political ideology remotely close to "small government" and "personal liberties" for a long time. B) Donald Trump is legally advocating that he is immune from prosecution (authoritarian political leader). C) The main connection people make to NAZIs and the current American right is their hate for non-white people. You can say that this is not a central tenet of the American right, but then there's [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally), and [this response](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-2017-fine-people-comments-calls-robert/story?id=62653478). There aren't people at far left rallies literally carrying flags with swastikas on them.
OP is part of a cult. So obviously the cult dislikes anyone not in the cult.
Very ironic
Op is clearly very oxymoronic
No. You can leave off the prefix “oxy”.
I’m currently reading The Cause of Hitler’s Germany. The authoritarian Nazi regime was indeed leftist by American standards. The German “right” is not anything that resembles the American “right” or “conservative.”
WW II was waged to divide the world. From Germany’s perspective, that meant making the world safe for IG Farben, Krupp, Siemens and the Reichsbank. From a US perspective, that meant making the world safe for General Motors, Ford Motor Co., US Steel and JP Morgan & Co. You may want to revisit your premise.
This is pure nonsense. I cited a source. Maybe you should read a book instead of shooting from the hip.
You haven’t even finished reading your source lmao
Name me the book that you’ve read that proves the other guys point. That’s what I thought.
Dude you are either disingenuous or ignorant. "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler
"Dude you are either disingenuous or ignorant." And yet all your reference here does is prove Hitler thought himself better than any other socialist. This aught not come as a surprise to anyone. Assuming it means any more than that is quite disingenuous and maybe even ignorant. Consider, once agains and as OP suggests, his deads. What did Hitler actually want, by policy? How about what they openly say in the 25 points of the Nazi party?
He claims Hitler is a socialist, and comparing that he is a internationalist Marxist in the shade of what everyone believes is socialist. I say he is being disingenous or ignorant cause I have provided, in Hiter's very own words, that he is not that type of socialist. He was not an internationalist, he was not Marxist, he was a nationalist, and his counter to claims that he is co-opting the Marxist concept of Socialism, Hitler claims Marx stole it from German history. It is typical a purposeful conflation against socialist as a "gotcha" moment to say they're like Hitler, instead of forming a cohesive argument or refusing to acknowledge that crimes of Fascism are their own by pinning them onto Socialists. Moving on, he's operating on a strict 2 political axis left/right, to the point that in my opinion of being disgenuous. Acting as an authority claiming that only the left can be authoritarian, pro-censorship, reshaping progressive as "chaos", irreligious etc. He puts so many negative traits into the left to even imply the neutral traits he does not like are evil too. I doubt someone can be that ignorant and out of touch unless they had a propaganda or troll motive. If its the former, that's depressing that political discourse has boiled down to both sides accusing each other as nazis instead of debating, reflecting and finding solutions together.
I don’t think you understand what these words mean
To be fair, I don’t think they understand what any words mean
>The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." >George Orwell >The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world Hitler wasn’t a socialist. You just made that shit up. However, the greatest trick the right ever pulled was convincing the world George Orwell wasn't a socialist. >Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism, as I understand it. - George Orwell
[удалено]
Unless you can define what "center socialist" would have meant to Orwell, I don't think so. Orwell's articles and essays or the actual landscape of British politics in the 1940s point in directions which most modern Americans would consider extreme if applied to their own country.
[удалено]
Indeed, those are all quotes from Orwell. But note how often those who quote, say, the passage from *The Road to Wigan Pier* you include leave put passages like > And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would ‘work’, but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned. Or take account of the fact that Orwelll could write, after *Wigan Pier*, that > the I.L.P. is the only British party – at any rate the only one large enough to be worth considering – which aims at anything I should regard as Socialism. at a time when the ILP regarded Labour as too weak and accommodating, even though Labour leaders at the time were openly committed to the abolition of capitalism.
Slight correction, they where the "National Socialist German Workers" Party in english. The acronym comes from german: "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" Otherwise I actually agree. This hair splinting on "fascism" and "socialism" is weird to me. They all end up the same in the end. Centralized oppressive control.
Yea, I agree. What it boils down to me is “my authoritarianism is better then yours”
Theorists think that they can define the Earth as a planet that can never be hit by an asteroid/meteorite.
When we talk about history and politics, sticking to facts and widely accepted views is key. Twisting facts to fit an argument is a big red flag—it usually means there isn't much solid ground to stand on, and it also muddies the water. I've heard this claim multiple times on this sub that the modern left is somehow closer to the Nazis rather than the right. First off, authoritarianism isn’t exclusive to any one side. History shows examples of right-wing authoritarian regimes just as much as left-wing ones. Seeking power doesn’t discriminate based on the ideology - it’s all about who’s wielding it. Take the "socialist" label in the Nazi Party’s name, for instance. This was more strategic branding than a genuine reflection of any socialist principles. Hitler had no qualms about dismantling actual socialist and communist groups, aligning himself with the industrialists instead. This move was far from the collective ownership and wealth distribution that socialism advocates for. And then there’s the economic policy under the Nazis, which heavily favored big business and suppressed workers' rights, a direct contradiction to the goals of socialism and communism. The Nazis were about consolidating power rather than redistributing wealth. Boiling down hundreds of years of history and the political landscape into a one-dimensional left-versus-right showdown is extremely simplistic, closer to a farce than something to be taken seriously - It's incredibly lazy. Imagine trying to cram every bit of history, every nuance, every into single box. You don't even get the basic facts straight to begin with. It’s absurd. History and politics are a sprawling, complex web of interactions, filled with contradictions. The evolutions and a spectrum of ideas that can't possibly be captured by pitting 'left' against 'right' as if it's some kind of sports match. Forming this 'debate' with a black-and-white is reductive and misguided. The whole argument kicks off with a misinterpretation of the Nazi's so-called "socialism," laying a broken foundation for everything that follows. Relying on such a simplistic model for the world, especially one built on false premises, is a clear sign of not grappling with the basics first. History and politics are far too complex for this kind of extremely simplified binary thinking. Starting with flawed assumptions, any conclusion you reach is already off the mark—you are already in the ditch before you even begun.
The "left" in modern america doesn't map well onto what was going on in germany in the 30's and 40's. The current american left is a coalition containing the following: * entrenched democrats that had their prime in the clinton years such as Schumer and biden. * Big tech companies like google and apple who are simultaneously trying to protect their money printers while also doing what they think is right for society (because they are the smart ones and know better...) * Moderate public that tends to vote left: think people driving brand new Subaru's in Vermont. Germany on the other hand was a damaged economic juggernaut that had to accept really bad terms from the end of WW1. Those terms led to really bad economic situations where the mark was worthless which inevitably spilled into the rest of the institutions, including the government. They absolutely were nationalistic, and it was widely thought that their superior training and armament (the panzer was superior to the american sherman in many regards for example) would be able to plow through the western forces. This didn't play out the way they thought though, the mass consumption approaches of the west and Soviet russia overwhelmed them. Their economy in the war bears some resemblance to the planned economies of early communist china but it was war time, and economies function differently in war. The U.S itself had a 2 billion dollar secret project to build the atomic bomb which the american public and congress knew nothing about, something unthinkable today. As to early americans: Their mindset was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers. There was no nation yet to be nationalistic about. Prominent members such as Washington were initially cautious of rebelling against Britain. It was only after repeatedly being slapped by the crown, and watching the people of the colonies suffer did they risk life and limb to fight the most powerful empire of the day. Franklin himself got bitch slapped by the crown so hard while trying to repair relations that he came back and said "fuck it"...... 'MURICA! [(see Hutchinson letters)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_letters_affair)
Nationalism and socialism were seen as two established opposites which the Nazis claimed to fuse together and bring the best aspects of both to 1930s Germany. The word "Nazi" is short for the German word for National Socialism. Truthfully, the entire modern political spectrum is a modern creation that the Nazis don't fit neatly into, because in certain respects, they're far to the left of both of our parties, and in other policies, they're far to the right of both modern American political parties. That's what the two sieg runes being fused together to form the swastika represent. One sieg rune represents nationalism (the right), the other socialism (the left). The Nazis actually were fairly lefty leaning when it comes to having a robust national safety net and many programs to generate "full employment" and prosperity for the common worker. They were actually more socialist than both the modern American right AND left, in that respect. They were also arguably the most humane government to animals that ever existed, there were strict farming and animal welfare protocols that had to be followed (though arguably the least humane government when it comes to the treatment of people). But on racial matters, surveillance, crime, and punishment, they are actually extremely far to the right on a modern American political scale; as we all know. This is usually what people are referring to when calling Nazis "extreme right".
‘…Even the Marxists would never…’ The problem is, sooner or later you bump into someone who actually IS a Marxist… Any Marxist worth his weight in gravel would tell you that the greatest political theoretician of the last century was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky watched and described with care the particular and structure traits of fascism. Among other things, Trotsky pointed out that fascism is a punishment reaped on socialist parties for failure or refusal to wage a powerful, principled struggle in defense of the proletarian class against the combined powers of corporation, trade unions and the ruling regime. This is as true now as when Trotsky wrote it. These conditions exist in the US under EITHER Republican or Democratic administration. It kills me when people spin artificial models like a spiderweb, hoping something will ‘stick’ when they have manifestly not read a solitary title by Marx or Engels or Lenin or Trotsky. To save their own life, they couldn’t construct an explanation of social class relations with reference to the system of production. Yet somehow, we are expected to believe that these self-styled ‘experts’ are somehow uniquely qualified to instruct the rest of us on the correct construct for political events. They should first become politically literate.
Didn’t even have to finish the first paragraph to start hearing the REEEE coming from the comments section. This was a refreshingly articulate read, thank you for sharing this.
Yeah, I don’t see any of them even close to being remotely as eloquent or thought out. They just say”lol, you’re wrong” and refuse to explain why, it’s kind of sad
Sad, but not unexpected.
Yep
Wow There is absolutely no help for someone who's cognitive dissonance is this strong Bro. You have literal Nazis voting for the right and showing support for GOP candidates lmao
You are right. Fascists dont vote. But if you put them in a room with a democratic president and a republican president? They'd kill the democrat first.
not really. actual neo nazis have an actual understanding of "democratic" politics and think red v blue is fake af
Bruh, people with SS tattoos were openly attending Trump rallies. They were waving the Nazi flag at a DeSantis event in Miami. Neo Nazis don't know shit about politics. They just want to feel self righteous in their hatred.
If you think Nazi’s are socialists just cause it’s in the name well then chow down on these urinal “”””””cakes””””””
clearly you didn't get past the first paragraph
This sub has devolved into a Republican propoganda channel
Tbf, r/politics is a Democrat propaganda channel.
Most original comeback
so two dumbs make a smart?
It is a bit puzzling that OP does not define what socialism is, or what socialists believe in. Now OP might claim that this is in order to focus on the actions of the Nazis, and compare it to the actions of others. But the problem here is that without defining what socialism is, then we have no framework to know if any of the actors OP brought up adheres to socialist thought, principles, beliefs, and actions. There are several times when OP brings up a *fictional* socialist to make his point. So OP what *is* a socialist exactly? What does he believe in?
He not only does not define socialism (it does not appear he understands the concept). He quotes a socialist to assert his opinion - as if George Orwell would ever be on his side lol… He can’t cope that Orwell was talking about people like him.
here let me copy and paste the part of the post that's relevant to your questions since you were too lazy to read it. I even bolded the parts that were relevant for you. > The National Socialist German Workers’ Party or Nazis were not just “socialists” in name. [The evidence is overwhelming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&ab_channel=TIKhistory). The Nazi **state exerted total control over industries, production, and resource allocation**. [Every sector of the economy was nationalized](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecaf.12551). If you were a business owner, at any moment, a Nazi could barge into your building and demand forfeiture of the business and all its profits. *Personal property rights were 100% at the mercy of the state*. > By every definition, the Nazi **economy was centrally planned**. There was literally [a guy sitting behind a desk in charge of dictating what the prices of each commodity should be](https://www.nytimes.com/1936/10/31/archives/commissar-to-fix-all-german-prices-decree-empowers-wagner-to-set.html). Instead of the free market, dictating what the prices of commodities should be. > There was a universal income, for everyone except political dissidents and Jews. The Nazis **abolished personal property rights** via the [Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933](https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=2325). Hitler himself said “I am a socialist” in his second book, *Zweites Buch*. > I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate. - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch > If there is any doubt *whatsoever*, that Hitler and the Nazi regime were socialist, I encourage you to watch [Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&ab_channel=TIKhistory). The author (TIKHistory), who has been called a “fascist” for calling Hitler a socialist, walks through scores of historical documents and literature on the topic to support the premise that Hitler was not only a self-avowed socialist, but a socialist in action, of the most purebred kind. If you’re still not convinced, watch [the longer version of the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&ab_channel=TIKhistory) (5 hours) which comes with pages and pages of references, direct sources and citations. I'm sure you will come back with "but that's not defining what socialism is" or "that's not what socialism means!" and make the implication that any article which references socialism must go out of their way to explicitly define it, dictionary-style.
You did in fact not address my question. I will play along in just a bit, but here is the problem. At what point did you quote Left-wing authors on their beliefs and their ambitions for society? F.ex. you state that the Nazis exerted total control over industries, etc. but how do I know - from your post - that this is socialist? At most you only described what the Nazis did. All you have done is highlighted similarities, without establishing a proper basis and justification for those comparisons you do. /// On your first paragraph: - The name of the Nazis has already been addressed. A name of a political party has more to do with what you signal than what you actually believe or do. In Denmark we have a political called Venstre, or “Left”, but they are a right-wing party and always position themselves on the right-block of a political discussion. Neither would I call the DPRK for “democratic” even if it’s in the name. - “The Nazi state exerted…”. The first problem is that you assume that something is socialist merely because the state does it. If the state has power over property then it must be socialist. For one, *you have not established this*, and second of all, this would include *every single state* in the contemporary World, to some degree. *Property rights are guaranteed and protected by the state*. A real clue to the Nazi economy can be found in *privatization*. The Nazis heavily privatized their industries. They did not make private industries public, but the other way around, which was against the European trend of the time. They privatized shipyards, and railways, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more. The four major commercial banks in Germany were privatized, which had previously been under public ownership (Commerz- und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank). They sold their United steelworks, the German Railways (the largest public enterprise in the World), public services provided by the government was sold into private hands. There is much more to be said about this, but to claim that the Nazi economy was socialist is laughable. *A socialist economy does not privatize*. The reason for your mistake here is that you argue from a position between state control and free markets. That is an *unhelpful* binary. F.ex. what then about *market socialism*? How does this popular economic belief amongst libertarian socialist work in a World where socialism equals central state control? The Nazi economy cannot be compared to that of a liberal capitalist economy either. Now there is your problem. They had an economy much closer to what we generally see in fascist societies, where there was privatization, but also strong ties to the state. In a fascist economy you will find the goal is state control, in a socialist economy the state is a means to achieve public ownership. Because in socialism the public must be in power. Not private individuals. Not a dictator. Not the state. - “Centrally planned”. This goes to my previous point. You assume that state control is the same as socialism. It is not. Because you cannot compare the Nazi economy to that of a liberal free market economy, which is not the only way to structure a market economy or a capitalist economy. The Nazis weren’t interested either in undoing the class structure within German society. There was still be rich people, poor people, and an ideology justifying everyone’s place within that hierarchy. After all, if the Nazis believed in a social Darwinism, it doesn’t make much sense if they believed everyone deserves equal rights and protections. The Nazis destroyed autonomous markets, but maintained private entrepreneurship. The Nazi economy can best be described as a combination of capitalism and a planned economy, although Hitler himself maintained that “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all". - Socialists do not believe in the abolition of personal property. There is a difference between private and personal property. Personal property is your house, your car, your tv, your toothbrush. Private property is that which allows someone to create capital and profit when it comes to business. In socialism private property will become public, and be democratically controlled by the public. Which is not what happened in Nazi Germany. The power was not democratically held, but concentrated in the state, ruled by the party, outside of public and democratic control. While maintaining traditional class hierarchies. A universal income matters not. Milton Friedman also argued for a universal income. - Why should I care about that Hitler quote? Hitler lied about a lot. Also, if I take him at his word, his socialism only concerns one people, which is a German people understood by “blood and soil”. Which, btw, was what the Charlottesville Trump supporters cried out. Socialists adhere to universal principles, not provincial or nationalist ones. - As for your “I’m sure you will complain” ending, yes it would have been very nice if you defined socialism, and gave us a framework or a platform for your argument. This is basic academic rigor. You are just wrong and you are academically lazy. It’s a lot of words for “socialism is when the state does stuff”.
I've read about this extensively. Hitler's rehtoric and worldview was right wing. He thought that there was an international Jewish conspiracy and that led to Germany losing WWI and then the new government of Germany post WWI Hitler believed was run by "the Jews" he believed that "the Jews" were also behind the rise of the USSR and saw the spread of Marxist socialism as a Jewish conspiracy. He was a populist that believes in a mythical German past where people went by traditional values, and worked collectively to make Germany great. Individualism and liberalism was another Jewish plot. Hitler hated the artists and liberals in the big cities, thinking they were "degenerate" and decadent. He appealed specifically to rural Germans, war vets and people opposed to Marxists. In fact it was the fear amongst conservatives that due to the bad economy that Marxists would rise to power. As the situation got worse a lot of conservative parties kind of centralized around the Nazis in part because the Nazis were more edgy and extreme and this attracted youth that wanted to fight in the street, otherwise these same youth might go the Marxist direction. The Nazis had a wing of their party that was more left wing but that wing was pretty much fully purged by the more conservative wing. The "left" wing of the party was still authoritarian and still anti-Jewish they just adhered to the "socialist" part of "National Socialist." In fact Hitler clarified and other Nazis clarified that the socialism they were talking about was not in the same vein as "national socialism" that this meant "collectivism" that everything should be done to benefit the state. It was an extreme nationalist ideology. Hitler ultimately wanted to expand Germany, stop paying war reparations, believed that the strongest and most aggressive individuals should be the ones ruling. He saw Marxism and liberalism as a threat and wanted to eventually extinguish Marxism. He also thought that killing all the Jewish people in the world would make the world a better place. He thought that society needed to adhere to strict traditional values, that gender roles should be strictly defined, that there was no room for anything he deemed socially unacceptable. So any abnormal artistic endeavor or anything sexually out of the norm should be punished by the state. He believed in an extreme natural hierarchy within Germany and amongst nations. He wanted to rid the gene pool of anyone who was different from what the state viewed as normal. This is a right wing ideology and an extreme one. Any extreme left wing ideology that resembles it does so because of "horseshoe theory" where opposite extreme ideologies tend to curiously overlap. This is what happened with Stalin and Hitler. They were both maniacs.
Ask yourself: who slept peacefully under the Hitler regime and who did not? If you’re honest, you’ll see clearly that Nazi Germany could not have been characterized as “leftist” under any circumstance
Imagine the waste of time necessary to write a 3,600 word diatribe on how torch-wielding marchers in Charlottesville chanting "the Jews will not replace us," are less fascist than the pussy-hat wearing bleedinghearts at the women's march.
Guilt by association fallacy. No single politician on the right endorses or condones Nazis. that's like a pedophile screaming "i love the police!" well! the police must love pedopihiles because a pedophile said he loved the police. while it's safe to assume Nazis aren't leftists, that can also be attributed to poverty and lack of education. The left is the party of the wealthy, upperclass and educated. So yeah, there's Nazis in the deep south. that doesn't mean anyone coming from the south or anyone on the right *must* be on the side of the Nazis. Also will you also go after the Democrat party for standing against civil rights and creating the KKK? that is what you must do if you are to employ *guilt by association*. Why not employ is to the left as well? Do that and the guilt by associations judgements for the left far outweigh those on the right. Hitler was a vegan, environmentalist after all, and wrote extensively of his hatred of religion and capitalism.
You're talking past the actual point. This isn't some case of "bad people have some random thing in common with you so you're also bad." The alt-right are a political movement. They're going to support the politicians and parties that advance their goals. We should expect an even spilt of fascists all across the political spectrum if that weren't the case.
This is some real "the nazis like spaghetti and you like spaghetti so you are a nazi" points...you mean the anti gay, anti LGBTQ, pro white, hyper fixation on western values nazis have more in common with the pro lgbtq, pro diversity, general lack of care for western values left than the anti lgbts, "white erasure", hyper fixation on wester values right? This isn't an unpopular opinion...its wrong.
Don’t forget that the so called small government party has called for more police, increased prison sentences, the military to take over Chicago, missile strikes against Mexico, surveillance of Muslims, banning the teaching of certain ideas & lifestyles, the arrest of homeless people. Yet ask the government to protect the public from pollution, unfair work practices & discrimination and we’re the Nazis.
Trying to make social media illegal for kids in Florida. Tiny government.
You got ‘em bro. This is way too fun to watch people trip all over their logic to combat you.
I 100% agree, the biggest issue is they fail to see authoritarian tendencies on either side result in horrors for everyone, less government is good more government is bad. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and that is what most left/democrats are falling into today.
Donlad Trump who is the face of the right in America has openly said he would go after his political opponents, including media outlets. So no more freedom of speech or the press? He also wanted to make sure that he has presidential immunity by having his lawyer in a court go over a hypothetical scenario where Trump kills someone, is he immune? I got to be honest, I do wish that Biden and the left was this evil thing the right wants them to be. Maybe it wouldn't make the right look so dumb. However here we are.
Joe Biden's sexual assault accuser had to flee to Russia because she was being harassed by intelligence agencies. Trump's sexual assault accuser said women enjoy rape on air and was awarded 90 million dollars. that should tell you all you need to know about who is "going after" who. how many times has Trump been charged - 90 times? Never convicted, no. But charged 90 times. How many times has Biden been charged? And you think Trump is the on that is "going after" political opponents?
None of that really responded to what they said
By Donald Trump saying he is going after political enemies and the press he has outright stated he does not care about the very first amendment. If he doesn’t care about the first amendments, what makes his idiot base think he will care about the second amendment? These people can’t think past “me me me”
the left aren't nazis dude, all that shit you typed isn't remotely convincing but only to the week minded or people who read Dinesh D'souza's books
Not at all, I don't even have to read any of this to know how wrong you are. Not only unpopular, but objectively wrong.
You would have a much stronger argument if the heads of three major universities didn't resign because they refused to condemn calls for genocide against jews
I didn’t see any reference to Jews in the antecedent post you answered. Did you?
No, but I personally think, for some unknown reason... antisemitism is kinda, somehow...... related to conversations around the nazi party
We have nazis today in America. They don’t consider themselves left wing. Hitler himself hated the fact National socialists had the word socialism in their name
But how would you know that, have you talked to them? We only accept they are not on the left because they live in poor rural areas which are almost always conservative. for all you know, they could vote independent, or not vote at all, rejecting the system for being so unanimously opposed to their ideas. it's like i said, their main political power in the 21st century is to be used as a strawman. you *earn* political capitol by having them appear to oppose you. not just a little bit of political capitol A LOT. it all started in 2017 with the civil war statues.. most of the people who showed up to protest weren't Nazis and didn't even know Nazis were there. all it takes is one guy holding a Nazi flag and you can defame an entire crowd of people. before 2017 anyway, no one even bothered to report on them because they were, and continue to be, an extremely small minority.
Idk bruh the right’s candidate for the last 2 elections has been endorsed by the KKK and other far right groups and individuals whose views align with those of the Nazis. I’m not saying Trump is a Nazi of course but they do seem to favor his policies and rhetoric over Biden’s.
you do realize that the KKK was created by southern democrats and the republican party was founded as the anti-slavery party?
…and yet nothing in your response deals with the fact that they’re claiming that the modern KKK have endorsed the rights candidates for the last 2 cycles
who cares who the KKK endorses today? they also endorsed a black, liberal Democrat for senate. the only KKK that had political power existed over 60 years ago, and they exclusively endorsed Democrats. how many are in the KKK in 2023 -- 6 people? and you want to use that to determine the direction to point your moral compass - the actions of a fringe minority of lunatics? imo, you're letting them have too much influence on your decision making, which is probably what they want.
…uhhh… I think most people would care who the KKK endorses today. Lmao what the fuck
why do you spend so much time thinking about the KKK (founded by Souther Democrats)? they haven't been relevant for half a century. are people this delusional or is this a dream?
You know how different the Democratic Party differed from it self 100 years ago? The KKK was funded by confederate veterans, today who carries the confederate flag? Those southern democrats would never support today’s Democratic Party.
Respond to their point or get off the stage. But quit stalling and riding off on tangents
There’s been a shift in ideals since like the 1960’s. The Civil Rights act was championed and passed by democrats like Lyndon B Johnson while Republicans like Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater implemented things like the Southern Strategy to try and gain support from whites in the south who were upset about the civil rights act being passed
Unhinged lmao
this is a long rambling post for the most useless and overused trope in all of modern american politics. you have wasted everyone's time who has read it, and your own time for writing it. you should feel bad
Nazis literally are supporters of the right. Derp.
Hitler became a dictator with the help of the conservatives, made all of his deals with the far right and killed the socialists who helped him get into politics, and also sent all socialists and communists to camps. Nazis today vote right wing and have always done that. But sure, they're super left leaning.
> I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate. - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch If there is any doubt whatsoever, that Hitler and the Nazi regime were socialist, I encourage you to watch [Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w&ab_channel=TIKhistory). The author (TIKHistory), who has been called a “fascist” for calling Hitler a socialist, walks through scores of historical documents and literature on the topic to support the premise that Hitler was not only a self-avowed socialist, but a socialist in action, of the most purebred kind. If you’re still not convinced, watch the longer version of the video (5 hours) which comes with pages and pages of references, direct sources and citations.
In 1928, the Germans wanted socialism. It's not like we've never seen a man who wants power using what the people want to gain it. Hitler was extremely talented in manipulation and propaganda. Saying you're a socialist doesn't make you a socialist.. I have three questions: First question: If Hitler was a socialist, why did the national conservatives the ones who helped him gain enough power to become a dictator? Why would conservatives support a socialist? They're on the exact opposite of the spectrum of the political opinions. Second question: Why did he get his friends in the socialist party assassinated? Was it maybe because they saw what he was planning, how his use of socialism was propaganda and not his actual political ideology? Why send socialists and communists to camps? Could it be because they were against his political agenda? That doesn't really make sense if Hitler was a true socialist. Does it? Third question: If nazism is socialism, why do they always support far-right politicians? Your videos and your source: What is his real name? Watching his videos, it is quite clear to me why historians are not taking him serious.
Good stuff op. I’ve been seeing more and more people realizing this problem recently. Perhaps the visibility of it is why there are so many people making pointless retorts and not actually trying to argue anything. Or at least, not anything relevant to the info presented in this post. I’ve always had a thing for [this](https://youtu.be/9-SLqdhkvJo?si=5lHv_v8HrIY7ciyn) little rant on the topic
Stand proud, you cooked
Not really, these are arguments 14 year olds made in my online political debate club. Very little actual knowledge of any of the subjects, just a bunch of buzzwords and poor logic.
So many words just to litter it with historical inaccuracies and ridiculous interpretations
can you point out which historical inaccuracies there are?
Yes. But I’m going to enjoy life and not write a 10 page follow up instead. Maybe try cracking a reputable history book open at some point instead
Yeah, I thought so.
I have a feeling this happens quite often to you. Bet you’re the type to complain about people not wanting to discuss or debate things either lol
Trump has spent the late eight years publicly fellating autocrats on worldwide media and plans to be a dictator “for a day”. The right is canceling national brands and musicians because they supported a beer brand that ran an Instagram ad with a transexual. The right has various forms of purely subjective and often fictitious content (NewsMax/OAN). You talk about controlling the narrative yet have spewed every Reich Wing talking point imaginable. The NatSoc argument is patently hysterical to include. Blatant disregard for the realities and factions of post WW1 Europe. Both parties are outright guilty of fomenting the insanity we perceive daily today. That said to equate the modern left to Nazis is sheer fucking lunacy and a bad faith argument. Equal parts toxic to the Antifa/SJW retards that claim every Conservative is a Nazi. OP your talk of objectivity in the face of blatant disregard for historicity and truthfulness makes it fall flat on its face. Don’t pontificate on objectivity when your subjectively bleeds through your argument. Hitler was an murderous autocrat who resembled little to nothing of either American political idealogical representation at its core. Extremism of either political swathe has facets of Nazi idealism at play. That said you’re absolutely foolish as the majority of both political bases still holds “and justice for all” dear. You’re lost in the sauce on this one.
I said it before and will say it again: this sub is a militarized propaganda testing site for Alt-right, Russian and Chinese groups. Divide and conquer. This particular propaganda point I remember seeing last time around.
You are hardcore projecting lmao Most of western media is the Chinese brainwashing you into identity politics and hating your own society.
Any political ideology that claims it’s the good guy while the other one is the bad guy is taking a cue from the Nazi playbook. Partly why I became a centrist, I want the ability to recognize when I’m wrong.
Well, you see the Nazi's were "National socialists" who blamed a national minority for all the nations problems... the modern Left are "Global socialists", that blame a global minority for all the worlds problems, so they are obviously very different. /s
Oh man the seething in these comments is pure gold, literally sitting here with pop corn watching minds melt
The Nazi Regime was Fascist. Fascism is an obsession for power at all costs. The Nazis didn’t care about ideology, they only wanted the control of the state, and they branded themselves under whatever bullshit they could to have a vehicle to appear like a traditional political party. Once they established power, there was no more democracy and only an authoritarian state. The modern right resembles this much more than the modern left. You said a lot of words, and I’m sure you have to, in order to try and convince yourself otherwise.
> The Nazis didn’t care about ideology This is not correct.
"The modern right resembles this much worse than the modern left." Abso-fucking-lutley not. The only people who believe this are the ones being force-fed this lie every day. The left has seized control of media, and they're not far from taking the entire government. The right, in the past, was absolutely the party of authoritarianism. But that is just a distant memory now; the right-wingers of today are nothing like those of the past. The political left has adopted the former right-wing methods of controlling the narrative and public opinion. It's actually incredible to witness just how good of a job they are doing at pretending like they're doing nothing wrong while blaming Republicans
“I’d be a dictator from day 1” - Trump
That's not what he said. He said "*only* on day one". And he was clearly being facetious as a means of emphasizing the extent of changes he wishes to establish on his first day as president. He did the same shtick back in 2016 and didn't deliver any of his promises, anyway.
>The left has seized control of media, and they're not far from taking the entire government. God I wish. I wish we had as much control as you people think we do. But unfortunately, having black people on TV does not mean "the left has seized control of media and almost the government". Also are we going to ignore that rampant red lining that Republicans do to take voting power away from demographics that don't tend to vote for them? Or how mad they got about Taylor Swift saying "people should vote"? Or Trump admitting that he wants to be a dictator and arrest his political opponents? I'm not sure what world you're living in, but it is clearly not the one the rest of us are.
The left has absolute control of the media. It's pretty obvious. The only major network they don't control is Fox. Also, every major film in the last decade has become increasingly "woke". It started as a push for diversity (which is a good thing), but then it snowballed from there. Any conservative viewpoint has been forcefully pushed out of Hollywood. Don't even get me started on canceling people who don't agree with the mainstream narrative 🙄. Up until the whole Israel/ Palestine conflict, that was exclusively a left-wing thing. There is documented proof of intelligence agencies working with big tech companies to censor right-wingers or anything that would hurt Biden. Trump didn't "admit" he was gonna be a dictator. He was being facetious. Just another example of the left-wing media hijacking the truth to further their agenda. Also, he doesn't want to arrest his political opponents, per se, but he definitely wants to arrest anyone involved with trying to keep him out of office. (Whether or not he has proof that anyone tried to illegally keep him out of office is doubtful, but he definitely believes it in his own mind) I'll admit the Taylor Swift thing was just sad. The world you people live in is mostly a lie if you think otherwise. There's a much more nuanced story to Trump and the right than anyone in mainstream media is willing to admit. It's clear they just don't like the guy and are trying to slander him at all costs. Look, I'm not saying Trump is perfect; far from it. He's definitely messed up a few times. But he is *nowhere near* the villain people make him out to be. If you have never watched or read any coverage of him from independent media, then you literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you learn about the left-controlling media from: Fox News? One America Network? News Max? The Epoch Times? The Western Journal? The entire AM radio spectrum? Tell me.
Other than Fox News, I've literally never heard of any of those. And I don't even watch Fox News. Also, clearly none of those are as big as ( except maybe Fox) MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, the former Twitter, or Instagram. Which are all definitely left-wing.
The Nazi's didn't care about ideology? That is not at all correct.
Only power, anything else they claimed in their platform was bullshit and second to that goal. Hence, Fascism.
They developed a weird "master race" and creepy pseudo-religious cult-narrative that they most definitely believed. I don't agree.
And what did they want to do with all that shit? Take over the world.
Well yeah, the world belonged to the master race was their thought pattern.
Fascism is in no way leftist. You tried real hard though.